The historical Luther (trying to get the facts right)

[De_Maria]

po18guy:

Contemporary knowledge of the “reformation” as it is with Catholic catechesis, is sadly and profoundly lacking.

Who’s fault is that? How are layman supposed to know about that which was going on in hiding for the past 20 years?

How are laymen supposed to understand the JDDJ, which is written in theological jargon which literally appears to contradict everything written in the infallible councils of Trent?

On the part of a certain faction of the Catholic laity, I would agree that knowledge is sadly and profoundly lacking – or better said, is stuck decades in a past that we have well moved beyond.

Again, who’s fault is that? We have been taught, by Catholic theologians, clerics and laymen, that Luther was a rebellious priest who divided the Church. That his actions were the cause of hatred, war and death. Then, out of the blue, a stamp is printed in his image and declares him a hero. No explanation offered. And then some berate the Faithful who have been fighting off the proselytizing anti-Catholic, Protestant factions who have literally decimated Catholic families.

But now we are supposed to celebrate that which literally yesterday, was considered error which the Church had anathematized?

Far from being sadly and profoundly lacking in the Academy, the state of affairs there is excellent-- far better than it was in the past and enough to declare that “The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.”

“corrections”?

As From Conflict to Communion says:

1. Today we are able to tell the story of the Lutheran Reformation together…

Why does that smack of political correctness and rewriting history to remove ugly facts?

As the document says so splendidly at its conclusion:

Catholics and Lutherans realize that they and the communities in which they live out their faith belong to the one body of Christ. The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over.

[/QUOTE]
None of us are opposed to Protestants returning to the Fold. We are opposed to setting aside the Truth and accepting the errors of the revolution which was instigated by Luther and his cronies.

And, I for one, do not understand how an excommunicated priest who renounced his vows and turned against Christ’s Church, is now hailed as a hero. That pill is a bit too hard to swallow just because you posted one article on the internet which says that we have, these past 20 years, made corrections to historical facts which have stood for 500 years.

Instead of berating laymen, someone ought to start the process of explaining these so-called, “corrections”? Is “teaching” no longer a priestly duty to the Faithful? Are priests not supposed to be “servants to the servants of God”?

 

[Gorgias]

Again, who’s fault is that?

Everyone who hasn’t been keeping up with recent historical scholarship, perhaps?

Why does that smack of political correctness and rewriting history to remove ugly facts?

Because you’re only giving it superficial consideration?

The gist here is that Catholics and Protestants alike have caricatured the whole sad affair: Luther was a buffoon; the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Luther always desired a break from the Church; the Church wallowed in its sin.

The real, historical, honest truth is a lot more complicated than that. Luther lit a match to kindling that the Church had contributed to creating; secular forces (Christian and pagan, ruler and peasant) fanned the flames for the sake of their own particular goals.

 

[Genesis315]

How do you expect laymen to understand the JDDJ, which is written in theological jargon which literally appears to contradict everything written in the infallible councils of Trent?

Not to mention that the Joint Declaration was NOT received by the Church precisely because it was not in accord with Trent on certain points and was ambiguous to allow both sides to say the same thing, while meaning different things. Everyone seems to always gloss over the Official Response to it from the Church. See here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...tuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

Also to add, in general when dealing with these ecumenical documents, the following should be remembered:

Pope Benedict XVI:
Today, moreover, one of the fundamental questions is the problem of the methods adopted in the various ecumenical dialogues. These too must reflect the priority of faith. Knowing the truth is a right of the conversation partner in every true dialogue. It is a requirement of love for one’s brother or sister. In this sense, it is necessary to face controversial issues courageously, always in a spirit of brotherhood and in reciprocal respect. It is also important to offer a correct interpretation of that order or “hierarchy” which exists in Catholic doctrine, observed in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 11), which in no way means reducing the deposit of the faith but rather bringing out its internal structure, the organic nature of this unique structure. The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedi...ts/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede.html

 

[De_Maria]

Everyone who hasn’t been keeping up with recent historical scholarship, perhaps?

recent historical scholarship? You mean changes to the history we were taught all our lives.

Because you’re only giving it superficial consideration?

Superficial? So, a person who is excommunicated and his teachings anathematized, is now considered a hero. And the contrast between the two conflicting attitudes towards the same fellow is considered, superficial? The answer is that recent historical scholarship has uncovered the hidden truth that this guy was really, a saint.

Hard pill to swallow. You’ll have to do more than accuse me of not staying abreast of changes made to the history which I have always been taught, by the Catholic Church, was true.

The gist here is that Catholics and Protestants alike have caricatured the whole sad affair: Luther was a buffoon; the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon. Luther always desired a break from the Church; the Church wallowed in its sin.

In the past 500 years, Popes and many highly praised theologians, clerics and laymen, have earnestly told us that Luther turned against the Catholic Church and started the revolution which ripped the Christian fabric in half. Yet, you are saying that these people were distorting the truth?

And yet, we work with fellows, the followers of Luther and they teach distinctively different gospels which conflict with the Catholic Gospel and they despise the Church and speak of her in the same disparaging fashion as Luther spoke of her in the historical documents that many of us have read.

What do you expect us to believe? That which we were taught our whole lives and which is verified and confirmed by the witness of living followers of Luther?

Or that which is written by people who live in white castles far away from real life and have decided that they don’t like the history which has been previously accepted.

The real, historical, honest truth is a lot more complicated than that.

Not according to the new history. The new history says that Luther is a hero and should be celebrated. That doesn’t sound like real, historical, honest truth to me.

Luther lit a match to kindling that the Church had contributed to creating; secular forces

That sounds simplistic. That doesn’t sound like real, historical truth.

(Christian and pagan, ruler and peasant) fanned the flames for the sake of their own particular goals.

[/QUOTE]
Says you. For the sake of your own particular goal.

The bottom line is this. The infallible council of Trent declared his error anathema. Now, somebody has decided that the man who pronounced these errors which were adopted by a large faction of christendom and which tore the Church asunder, is to be celebrated as a hero.

Your simplistic explanation does nothing to resolve that dilemma.

 

[De_Maria]

Actually… no. The Catholic Church teaches that we do have free will, and make the choice whether to exercise it for the good (i.e., within God’s will) or for evil (i.e., outside of God’s will).

Because of the JDDJ, there are lots of Catholics saying that the Catholic Church teaches justification by grace alone. They either don’t know or don’t bother to mention that “grace alone” has historically been an expression of monergism or irresistible grace. The idea that man has no free will. But the JDDJ has changed it to be an expression of synergism, which is the Teaching that we are saved by grace through faith and works which accepts the doctrine that man has free will.

In essence, they’re using the same jargon to express a teaching in contradiction to the original intent.

God is not the author of confusion. But that is what is coming out of the JDDJ.

 

[Genesis315]

Or that which is written by people who live in white castles far away from real life and have decided that they don’t like the history which has been previously accepted.

Good point. In addition, the equivalence being made by some on here between those who reject (whether done in good faith or not) dogmas --truths revealed by God Himself for our salvation–with those who aren’t comfortable with some of the cocktail party ecumenism carried on by a few members of the Church (and which, as far as I can tell, is no where imposed on all the faithful) would be laughable, if it wasn’t a reflection of the sad state of faith in the Church.

The awareness is dawning on Lutherans and Catholics that the struggle of the sixteenth century is over.

This totally misses the point of the struggle. The struggle is for the truths revealed by God and for all the baptized to believe them as they are obliged for the good of their souls. That problem still remains and that is the real bone of contention. I am reminded of this passage from Cardinal de Lubac’s “Paradoxes of Faith”:

Henri de Lubac:
If heretics no longer horrify us today, as they once did our forefathers, is it certain that it is because there is more charity in our hearts? Or would it not too often be, perhaps, without our daring to say so, because the bone of contention, that is to say, the very substance of our faith, no longer interests us? Men of too familiar and too passive a faith, perhaps for us dogmas are no longer the Mystery on which we live, the Mystery which is to be accomplished in us. Consequently then, heresy no longer shocks us; at least, it no longer convulses us like something trying to tear the soul of our souls away from us…And that is why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them.

In reality, bias against ‘heretics’ is felt today just as it used to be. Many give way to it as much as their forefathers used to do. Only, they have turned it against political adversaries. Those are the only ones with whom they refuse to mix. Sectarianism has only changed its object and taken other forms, because the vital interest has shifted. Should we dare to say that this shifting is progress? It is not always charity, alas, which has grown greater, or which has become more enlightened: it is often faith, the taste for the things of eternity, which has grown less.

 

[2towers]

Hi thank you for your post. Because of the Prodistant baggage I carry around (from direct experience) my views of Luther and the reformation are deeply biased, I will admit. However, I am at least willing to listen to a Catholic theology scholar or apologist who has studied later Catholic research on Luther.

Are you saying that early Catholic charictersation of Luther is too harsh or overbaked?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Everyone who hasn’t been keeping up with recent historical scholarship, perhaps?

recent historical scholarship? You mean changes to the history we were taught all our lives.

Inasmuch as “the history we were taught all our lives” didn’t take into account the socio-political forces at work in the 16th century, yes.

Because you’re only giving it superficial consideration?

Superficial? So, a person who is excommunicated and his teachings anathematized, is now considered a hero.

No… not a ‘hero’, but certainly not a one-dimensional villain and whipping-boy.

The answer is that recent historical scholarship has uncovered the hidden truth that this guy was really, a saint.

No. That’s a caricature, as well.

You’ll have to do more than accuse me of not staying abreast of changes made to the history which I have always been taught, by the Catholic Church, was true.

The problem, I think, is that on multiple sides (there are more than two sides in this affair), there was always less ‘history’ and more ‘polemics’. Pulling back from the attack mode allows us to see dimensions of the 16th century that we are blinded to – as Catholics and Protestants alike – if we only view them with the lens of “condemn the heretics”.

In the past 500 years, Popes and many highly praised theologians, clerics and laymen, have earnestly told us that Luther turned against the Catholic Church and started the revolution which ripped the Christian fabric in half. Yet, you are saying that these people were distorting the truth?

No… but certainly only telling part of the story.

And yet, we work with fellows… [who] despise the Church and speak of her in the same disparaging fashion

These, too, need to examine the historical perspective a bit more closely and carefully.

What do you expect us to believe?

That sometimes, distance and perspective allows us to see things in a different light than a myopic view affords.

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

… continuing
DeMaria:

Not according to the new history. The new history says that Luther is a hero and should be celebrated. That doesn’t sound like real, historical, honest truth to me.

Says you. The stuff I’ve read – from historians – is nowhere as simplistic as that.

Luther lit a match to kindling that the Church had contributed to creating; secular forces

That sounds simplistic. That doesn’t sound like real, historical truth.

I’m distilling it down. Go read what historians are writing these days. You’ll find a wealth of detail there.

(Christian and pagan, ruler and peasant) fanned the flames for the sake of their own particular goals.

Says you. For the sake of your own particular goal.

Wow. Seriously? Yeah, dude, you’ve sussed me out, alright: my whole goal is to undermine and castigate fellow Catholics, so that they swallow a barrel of lies meant to obfuscate the truth.

The bottom line is this. The infallible council of Trent declared his error anathema.

And they were correct.

Now, somebody has decided that the man who pronounced these errors which were adopted by a large faction of christendom and which tore the Church asunder, is to be celebrated as a hero.

Do you have a citation – from a Catholic source, I’m assuming – that frames it up as the “hero worship” straw man that you’re setting up here?

Your simplistic explanation does nothing to resolve that dilemma.

You shouldn’t get your history from me (or, for that matter, from any of the sides that have a vested interest and hurt feelings). Rather, do your own research and see what historians are saying.

 

[Gorgias]

If the struggle of the sixteenth century was over, there wouldn’t still be Lutheran churches.

The presence of a splintered Christianity in the West isn’t evidence of the struggle, it’s evidence of the consequences…

 

[De_Maria]

Inasmuch as “the history we were taught all our lives” didn’t take into account the socio-political forces at work in the 16th century, yes.

Maybe the history you were taught, didn’t. The history I was taught, did.

No… not a ‘hero’, …

Then why print a stamp in his image and celebrate the anniversary of his rebellion?

No. That’s a caricature, as well.

Again, then why print a coin in his image? The caricature is that the guy that lit the match that ripped the Church in half, has redeeming qualities that should be revered.

The problem, I think, is that on multiple sides (there are more than two sides in this affair), there was always less ‘history’ and more ‘polemics’. …

The question is straight forward.

Did Luther teach the anathematized doctrine of salvation by faith alone? Yes or no?
Was the infallible Council of Trent wrong for anathematizing all the doctrines which Luther invented? Yes or no.

The question is clear cut.

In the past 500 years, Popes and many highly praised theologians, clerics and laymen, have earnestly told us that Luther turned against the Catholic Church and started the revolution which ripped the Christian fabric in half. Yet, you are saying that these people were distorting the truth?

No… but certainly only telling part of the story.

In a previous message, you characterized that part of the story as a caricature.

And yet, we work with fellows… [who] despise the Church and speak of her in the same disparaging fashion

These, too, need to examine the historical perspective a bit more closely and carefully.

Whose got the authority to tell them to do so?

What do you expect us to believe?

That sometimes, distance and perspective allows us to see things in a different light than a myopic view affords.

What makes our view myopic when it is we who are looking at 500 years of history and yours not, when you’re only taking into account the “recent new developments in scholarship”.

continued…

 

[De_Maria]

Says you. The stuff I’ve read – from historians – is nowhere as simplistic as that.

Then they need to provide their evidence and set it side by side with the history that we have learned and explain why this new history is better than the old. Because from the outside, it looks like some people just didn’t like the facts and decided to do a little sanitizing and rewriting the inconvenient facts out of history.

I’m distilling it down.

You’re muddying it up. It’s not that difficult.

Go read what historians are writing these days. You’ll find a wealth of detail there.

Before I consider it worthwhile to read any new developments in that which historians are writing these days, someone will have to explain to me, how the person whose errors were anathematized by the infallible Council of Trent, has become a hero whose effigy has been branded on a coin.

Is Luther the source of those errors? Yes or no.

(Christian and pagan, ruler and peasant) fanned the flames for the sake of their own particular goals.

[/QUOTE]
Who put the flames there in order that they could be fanned? Is Luther the person who proclaimed and popularized the errors anathematized by the Council of Trent? Yes or no.

Is he the man whose pronouncements led to the Protestant Revolution? Yes or no.

Wow. Seriously? Yeah, dude, you’ve sussed me out, alright: my whole goal is to undermine and castigate fellow Catholics, so that they swallow a barrel of lies meant to obfuscate the truth.

Glad you admit it.

The bottom line is this. The infallible council of Trent declared his error anathema.

And they were correct.

[/QUOTE]
And now we’re supposed to celebrate the man who pronounced these errors.

Now, somebody has decided that the man who pronounced these errors which were adopted by a large faction of christendom and which tore the Church asunder, is to be celebrated as a hero.

Do you have a citation – from a Catholic source, I’m assuming – that frames it up as the “hero worship” straw man that you’re setting up here?

Who prints stamps for someone whom they don’t consider a hero? Now, if I’m wrong and no such stamp has been printed, then I apologize. I’m going by this:

Vatican to Release Stamp Honoring Martin Luther

Vatican stamp to honor Luther | News Headlines

A chief provider and curator of Catholic information on the web since 1996. Our editorial voice, always faithful to the teachings of the Church, assists and inspires Catholic clergy and laity.

www.catholicculture.org

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Not to mention that the Joint Declaration was NOT received by the Church precisely because it was not in accord with Trent on certain points and was ambiguous to allow both sides to say the same thing, while meaning different things. Everyone seems to always gloss over the Official Response to it from the Church.

You are incorrect. The Joint Declaration was received.

The Official Response of 1998 was rendered moot because of the annex which successfully addressed what it raised.

The great force behind resolving the Official Response of 1998 so that the document was received by both Confessions was, in fact, His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who wanted the document even stronger and more precise.

It was therefore all the more special when the document, with the annex, was signed on
October 31, 1999…specifically chosen to commemorate the anniversary of the Reformation

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31101999_cath-luth-official-statement_en.html

 

[De_Maria]

Genesis315:

Not to mention that the Joint Declaration was NOT received by the Church precisely because it was not in accord with Trent on certain points and was ambiguous to allow both sides to say the same thing, while meaning different things. Everyone seems to always gloss over the Official Response to it from the Church.

You are incorrect. The Joint Declaration was received. …

[/QUOTE]
Great! So why is Luther being commemorated with a stamp? Are we supposed to consider him a hero now?

What about the anathemas of Trent? Have they been set aside?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the Reformation, 31st October 2017:

On 31st of October 2017, the final day of the year of the common ecumenical Commemoration of the Reformation, we are very thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, a commemoration that we have shared together and with our ecumenical partners globally. Likewise, we begged forgiveness for our failures and for the ways in which Christians have wounded the Body of the Lord and offended each other during the five hundred years since the beginning of the Reformation until today.

We, Lutherans and Catholics, are profoundly grateful for the ecumenical journey that we have travelled together during the last fifty years. This pilgrimage, sustained by our common prayer, worship and ecumenical dialogue, has resulted in the removal of prejudices, the increase of mutual understanding and the identification of decisive theological agreements. In the face of so many blessings along the way, we raise our hearts in praise of the Triune God for the mercy we receive.

On this day we look back on a year of remarkable ecumenical events, beginning on 31st October 2016 with the joint Lutheran - Catholic common prayer in Lund, Sweden, in the presence of our ecumenical partners. While leading that service, Pope Francis and Bishop Munib A. Younan, then President of the Lutheran World Federation, signed a joint statement with the commitment to continue the ecumenical journey together towards the unity that Christ prayed for (cf. John 17:21). On the same day, our joint service to those in need of our help and solidarity has also been strengthened by a letter of intent between Caritas Internationalis and the Lutheran World Federation World Service.

/…/

Among the blessings of this year of Commemoration is the fact that for the first time Lutherans and Catholics have seen the Reformation from an ecumenical perspective. This has allowed new insight into the events of the sixteenth century which led to our separation. We recognize that while the past cannot be changed, its influence upon us today can be transformed to become a stimulus for growing communion, and a sign of hope for the world to overcome division and fragmentation. Again, it has become clear that what we have in common is far more than that which still divides us.

We rejoice that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, solemnly signed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999, has also been signed by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and, during this Commemoration Year of the Reformation, by the World Communion of Reformed Churches. On this very day it is being welcomed and received by the Anglican Communion at a solemn ceremony in Westminster Abbey. On this basis our Christian communions can build an ever closer bond of spiritual consensus and common witness in the service of the Gospel…"

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/201...mark_500th_anniversary_of_reformation/1346149

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The presence of a splintered Christianity in the West isn’t evidence of the struggle, it’s evidence of the consequences…

You are correct in your posts, Gorgias.

 

[Genesis315]

Good to know–everyone always just puts forward the “first draft” so to speak. It seems the actual thing of import (which is much more pared down than the original JDDJ) is the Common Statement and Annex:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31101999_cath-luth-official-statement_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-annex_en.html

Obviously, as they both say, it just deals with the particular points related to justification, not all Lutheran doctrine. And of course, it seems not all Lutherans agree that this is in fact Lutheran doctrine…

Interesting article here by a Lutheran I found when looking for their take (basically claiming Rome didn’t budge on the doctrine of Trent, and Lutherans shouldn’t say they agree with Trent, because they don’t):

A Betrayal of the Gospel: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification | Paul T. McCain | First Things

 

[Genesis315]

What about the anathemas of Trent? Have they been set aside?

Not at all–in fact in the docs (Common Statement, Annex) and article in my post above replying to Don Ruggero, it is clear that Rome did not budge on the anathemas of Trent and that instead, the Lutheran delegation consented to their truth (at least the ones on the specific points related to justification that were agreed upon–not all points were agreed upon of course).

 

[FollowChrist34]

Catholics do not believe in free will outside of God’s grace. God gives us special grace that enables us to ‘freely’ accept him. It’s a little ambiguous. What need to do we have of God if we possess free will to choose or reject him independently? We are the equal of God - or even superior. We call the shots.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics do not believe in free will outside of God’s grace.

You either have been misinformed or have misunderstood Catholic teaching:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

FollowChrist34:

God gives us special grace that enables us to ‘freely’ accept him. It’s a little ambiguous. What need to do we have of God if we possess free will to choose or reject him independently? We are the equal of God - or even superior. We call the shots.

It sounds like you’re describing Lutheranism, not Catholicism.